Fluid is an interesting, difficult-to-understand, and highly controversial DeFi protocol. As a "new" DeFi protocol launched in 2024, its peak TVL exceeded $2.6 billion, and it still has $1.785 billion in TVL. With a trading volume of $16.591 billion over the past 30 days, Ethereum's mainnet trading volume accounts for 43.68% of Uniswap's total trading volume. This is a remarkable achievement. Fluid combines lending with a DEX, accepting LPs (such as ETH/wBTC) as collateral, allowing LPs to still earn fees while providing collateral. Fluid calls this Smart Collateral. Okay, it seems rather ordinary. Image generated by Nano Banana Pro - Gemini AI based on the original text. Smart Debt is a unique design feature of Fluid. Normally, in lending, users borrow money and pay interest. In Fluid smart debt, users also borrow LP trading pairs. That's right. If you want to borrow 1000 USDT, you will borrow 500 USDT + 500 USDC. The trading pair borrowed by the user will be automatically deposited into Fluid DEX as liquidity. In other words, users can choose to withdraw the funds for other purposes, just like a regular loan, or they can choose to pledge LPs to borrow from LPs and then deposit them into the DEX to earn more transaction fees. Essentially, smart debt encourages borrowers to leverage LPs within Fluid for revolving lending. This protocol increases liquidity, attracts more traders, and allows LPs to earn more transaction fees. This is precisely the flywheel that Fluid ultimately aims to build. Therefore, if you have studied Fluid, you will see many articles describing Fluid as a "DEX-on-lending" protocol, and this is the reason. The Fluid architecture is like a composite structure; you can think of it as a main road and auxiliary roads, a trunk and tributaries, a two-layer cake, or anything like that. The core underlying component is the unified Liquidity Layer, a smart contract used to store the liquidity of all assets. It is responsible for managing all the money and handling deposits, withdrawals, loans, and repayments. Above the liquidity layer are multiple sub-protocols and Vault. The sub-protocols have their own business logic, but they do not directly hold assets. Instead, they use the liquidity layer to manage the deposit and withdrawal of funds. The various sub-protocols are interconnected through a liquidity layer. For example, assets deposited by a user through a lending sub-protocol can be lent out by other Vault sub-protocols; Assets deposited through smart lending can be lent out by Vault and simultaneously provide trading liquidity for DEX sub-protocols. Ordinary users only need to interact with the various sub-protocols to conduct deposit or loan operations, without having to directly access the liquidity layer. Specific operating methods Typical lending agreements: Alice deposits: 100 ETH (single token) Bob lends out: 5000 USDC (single token) Fluid method: Usage 1: Ordinary Loans Just like Aave and Compound, you deposit collateral and your wallet receives a loan, except that the loan is lent out by LPs, such as USDT + USC, and the loan can be used anywhere. Use Case 2: Smart Debt While both involve depositing collateral and lending to limited partners (LPs), the difference lies in the fact that the Fluid protocol directly injects this money into Fluid's DEX trading pool. Users earn transaction fees through debt, and the liquidity pool expands its liquidity through debt. Then, users can revolve the loan. This means using LPs as collateral to borrow from other LPs, then collateralizing again to borrow more, and so on in a continuous cycle. The official documentation gives a theoretical maximum leverage of 39 times based on a 95% LTV (Loan-to-Value) calculation. What are the trade-offs of Fluid? Fluid attempts to unify lending and trading within a single liquidity layer. To achieve this unification, certain compromises must be made, and these compromises are precisely the root cause of additional losses suffered by limited partners (LPs) during volatile market conditions. In Uniswap V3, when the market price exceeds the LP price range, users only temporarily lose to earn transaction fees, and their positions become 100% of a single asset (e.g., all converted to USDC). This is impermanent loss, and the loss may disappear once the price returns to its normal range. Fluid rebalancing transforms "impermanent loss" into "permanent loss". Fluid automatically adjusts the liquidity price range for certain Valuts in order to maintain high capital utilization or to maintain lending health (preventing liquidation). For example, Suppose the price of ETH drops from 3000 to 2800. 1) Uniswap V3 Manual LP: The LP price range is still 2900-3100. Therefore, you would currently hold 100% ETH. If you choose to remain inactive and the price returns to 3000, the LP will return to its initial state with no additional loss. 2) Fluid Automatic Rebalancing: In order to ensure active liquidity (or for risk control), the protocol will automatically perform "rebalancing" when it detects that the price has fallen below the range. At the 2800 level, a portion of the LP's ETH must be sold and converted into USDC to regain liquidity in the new 2700-2900 range. The consequence is that this "sell" action is a real transaction, selling the tokens at a lower price. If the ETH price subsequently rebounds quickly back to 3000, as mentioned before, Uniswap V3 user assets will remain unaffected, and the token pair allocation provided by LPs will return to its original state. In order to recover the price, the Fluid protocol must rebalance when the price rises by buying back ETH with USDC. However, because it was sold at a low price before, it is now being bought back at a high price. This is actually a case of "selling low and buying high," a type of operation that frequently occurs in volatile markets, and this type of loss is known as LVR (Loss-Versus-Rebalancing). Why does Fluid need to be rebalanced? Because LP trading pairs play a very important role in Fluid in order to connect lending and DEX using a unified liquidity layer, even the loans made through lending are trading pairs. Therefore, Fluid had to introduce a concept – “Shares”. In Uniswap V3, LPs are non-fungible, and withdrawals are made via NFTs. Your actions only affect yourself. In order for liquidity to be usable by lending protocols (collateral and debt), Fluid must design its liquidity pools to be homogeneous. LPs do not hold specific "ETH in this price range," but rather "x% of the entire pool." When the agreement triggers rebalancing and causes the aforementioned "buy low, sell high" attrition, the total net asset value of the entire pool decreases. Since LPs hold shares, the price of a share = total pool assets / total number of shares, and the share price will fall directly. Therefore, unlike in Uniswap V3, LPs cannot choose "I will not participate in this adjustment and I will hold on to it"; in Fluid LPs, they are forced to participate in the rebalancing. For another example, Assume the price of ETH is 1000 USDC. Invest LP 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (total value $2000). At this point, the price dropped, with ETH falling from 1000 to 800. 1. Uniswap V3 (Do not operate) As prices fall, traders sell ETH, forcing LPs to buy it. This reduces USDC and increases ETH in the LP pool. Eventually, at the low of 800, the LP pool becomes 100% ETH (let's say approximately 2.2 ETH, with no USDC remaining). The current LP holdings are worth 2.2 ETH, or 1760 USDT. Although they are at a paper loss, the LPs hold a large amount of ETH. 2. Fluid Forced Rebalancing The same situation occurs. The price falls below the lower limit of the range set by Fluid. The protocol determines that the current range (900-1100) is invalid. In order for Vault to continue generating fees (or for lending health), the range must be moved to near the current price, such as 720-880. The key issue is that establishing the new 720-880 range requires 50% ETH + 50% USDC. However, your current position is entirely in ETH. Therefore, a forced action is implemented: Fluid must sell half of your ETH at the 800 price level and convert it back to USDC. Therefore, 1.1 ETH was sold for 880 USDC, which was then used to form a new LP with the remaining 1.1 ETH. The current value is 1.1 ETH + 880 USDC = 1760. However, at this point, your ETH holdings have decreased from 2.2 to 1.1. In effect, Fluid forced you to "cut your losses" at this bottom. At this point, the price rebounded, and the price of ETH rose from 800 back to 1000. Uniswap V3 (Lie flat, no operation required) As the price rebounded, the 2.2 ETH held were gradually bought up and converted back to USDC. The price returned to 1000, and the LP position reverted to 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (ignoring transaction fees). Total value 2000 U, impermanent loss has disappeared. Fluid Forced Rebalancing Prices rebounded, and the new range of 720-880 became invalid again. It is necessary to rebalance and move the range back to 900-1100. Currently, there are only 880 USDC and 1.1 ETH. If the price breaks through 880, the LPs will only have USDC, because the ETH has been bought. At this point, the LPs' positions are all in USDC, totaling 1760 USDC, which is the 880 USDC they initially held plus the amount they sold later. The protocol rebalances when the ETH price reaches 1000, buying ETH with regular USDC to maintain a 50:50 ETH:USDC value. At this point, the LP's position is 0.88 ETH and 880 USDC. The total value is 1760 USDC, a loss of 240 USDC compared to the initial total value of 2000 USDC. Moreover, this 240 U is a permanent loss. The subsequent Fluid DEX v2 upgrade addresses the pain point of permanent loss during rebalancing by transferring the wear and tear costs to arbitrageurs in a "smarter" way, thereby significantly reducing this permanent loss. First, there is a dynamic fee mechanism. When prices fluctuate sharply, the transaction fee will increase accordingly to compensate for the rebalancing losses of LPs. Secondly, a "buffer zone" is set up for the oracle; if it is just a brief insertion, no rebalancing will be performed. Then, LPs are allowed to customize price ranges, with wider options available; rebalancing only occurs when prices exceed these ranges. Asymmetric LP positions are also permitted, meaning the token pair does not need to maintain a constant 50:50 ratio. If that's the case, why does Fluid have a TVL of $1.785 billion and account for 43.68% of Uniswap's trading volume in the past 30 days? Fluid masks or offsets permanent wear and tear through extreme capital efficiency and low-risk strategies for specific assets. Wear and tear comes from frequent rebalancing caused by sharp price fluctuations. But what if, however, the prices between LP token pairs didn't fluctuate? For stable pegged assets like USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, rebalancing wear is virtually zero. However, Fluid's mechanism allows for leverage of up to 39x on these assets. Furthermore, the returns include both lending and DEX revenue. Therefore, Fluid's focus is actually on stablecoins, ETH and its LST assets, and BTC-related liquid assets, as shown in the data below. Source: https://dune.com/entropy_advisors/fluid-liquidity Another point is that Fluid's liquidation mechanism differs from typical lending agreements, with liquidation penalties as low as 0.1%. If a lending agreement like Aave needs to be liquidated, external MEV Bots can take the collateral at a discount to help with the liquidation. This "discount" is the liquidation penalty, designed to prevent losses from margin calls. Aave's penalty is 5%. A unified liquidity layer allows Fluid to eliminate the need for external clearing, instead completing clearing directly on its own DEX. The system automatically sells a portion of the collateral to repay the debt. Therefore, penalties can be as low as 0.1% plus slippage. This is actually a favorable trade-off brought about by a unified liquidity layer, which also benefits high leverage. Therefore, Fluid is very beneficial for revolving loans of stable asset LPs such as USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, and will also attract stablecoin investment whales and aggressive on-chain traders. Can I buy $FLUID tokens? To be honest, I'm not sure. Currently, there is no necessary connection between protocol revenue and coin price, although the Instadapp community and team have repeatedly hinted at or discussed Fluid's revenue distribution issue. However, the protocol revenue is not currently being distributed to token holders. Summarize Tradeoffs are an extremely important, even primary, consideration in blockchain project design. To achieve core features, certain necessary conditions must be met, and these conditions, in turn, constrain the project. Fluid is a project with a prominent trade-off. It is believed that the project team designed it from the outset to build a unified liquidity layer, expanding liquidity through lending and DEX features. The stablecoin LP and ETH and its LPT token trading pairs are the best entry point for expanding liquidity through leveraged cyclical lending.Fluid is an interesting, difficult-to-understand, and highly controversial DeFi protocol. As a "new" DeFi protocol launched in 2024, its peak TVL exceeded $2.6 billion, and it still has $1.785 billion in TVL. With a trading volume of $16.591 billion over the past 30 days, Ethereum's mainnet trading volume accounts for 43.68% of Uniswap's total trading volume. This is a remarkable achievement. Fluid combines lending with a DEX, accepting LPs (such as ETH/wBTC) as collateral, allowing LPs to still earn fees while providing collateral. Fluid calls this Smart Collateral. Okay, it seems rather ordinary. Image generated by Nano Banana Pro - Gemini AI based on the original text. Smart Debt is a unique design feature of Fluid. Normally, in lending, users borrow money and pay interest. In Fluid smart debt, users also borrow LP trading pairs. That's right. If you want to borrow 1000 USDT, you will borrow 500 USDT + 500 USDC. The trading pair borrowed by the user will be automatically deposited into Fluid DEX as liquidity. In other words, users can choose to withdraw the funds for other purposes, just like a regular loan, or they can choose to pledge LPs to borrow from LPs and then deposit them into the DEX to earn more transaction fees. Essentially, smart debt encourages borrowers to leverage LPs within Fluid for revolving lending. This protocol increases liquidity, attracts more traders, and allows LPs to earn more transaction fees. This is precisely the flywheel that Fluid ultimately aims to build. Therefore, if you have studied Fluid, you will see many articles describing Fluid as a "DEX-on-lending" protocol, and this is the reason. The Fluid architecture is like a composite structure; you can think of it as a main road and auxiliary roads, a trunk and tributaries, a two-layer cake, or anything like that. The core underlying component is the unified Liquidity Layer, a smart contract used to store the liquidity of all assets. It is responsible for managing all the money and handling deposits, withdrawals, loans, and repayments. Above the liquidity layer are multiple sub-protocols and Vault. The sub-protocols have their own business logic, but they do not directly hold assets. Instead, they use the liquidity layer to manage the deposit and withdrawal of funds. The various sub-protocols are interconnected through a liquidity layer. For example, assets deposited by a user through a lending sub-protocol can be lent out by other Vault sub-protocols; Assets deposited through smart lending can be lent out by Vault and simultaneously provide trading liquidity for DEX sub-protocols. Ordinary users only need to interact with the various sub-protocols to conduct deposit or loan operations, without having to directly access the liquidity layer. Specific operating methods Typical lending agreements: Alice deposits: 100 ETH (single token) Bob lends out: 5000 USDC (single token) Fluid method: Usage 1: Ordinary Loans Just like Aave and Compound, you deposit collateral and your wallet receives a loan, except that the loan is lent out by LPs, such as USDT + USC, and the loan can be used anywhere. Use Case 2: Smart Debt While both involve depositing collateral and lending to limited partners (LPs), the difference lies in the fact that the Fluid protocol directly injects this money into Fluid's DEX trading pool. Users earn transaction fees through debt, and the liquidity pool expands its liquidity through debt. Then, users can revolve the loan. This means using LPs as collateral to borrow from other LPs, then collateralizing again to borrow more, and so on in a continuous cycle. The official documentation gives a theoretical maximum leverage of 39 times based on a 95% LTV (Loan-to-Value) calculation. What are the trade-offs of Fluid? Fluid attempts to unify lending and trading within a single liquidity layer. To achieve this unification, certain compromises must be made, and these compromises are precisely the root cause of additional losses suffered by limited partners (LPs) during volatile market conditions. In Uniswap V3, when the market price exceeds the LP price range, users only temporarily lose to earn transaction fees, and their positions become 100% of a single asset (e.g., all converted to USDC). This is impermanent loss, and the loss may disappear once the price returns to its normal range. Fluid rebalancing transforms "impermanent loss" into "permanent loss". Fluid automatically adjusts the liquidity price range for certain Valuts in order to maintain high capital utilization or to maintain lending health (preventing liquidation). For example, Suppose the price of ETH drops from 3000 to 2800. 1) Uniswap V3 Manual LP: The LP price range is still 2900-3100. Therefore, you would currently hold 100% ETH. If you choose to remain inactive and the price returns to 3000, the LP will return to its initial state with no additional loss. 2) Fluid Automatic Rebalancing: In order to ensure active liquidity (or for risk control), the protocol will automatically perform "rebalancing" when it detects that the price has fallen below the range. At the 2800 level, a portion of the LP's ETH must be sold and converted into USDC to regain liquidity in the new 2700-2900 range. The consequence is that this "sell" action is a real transaction, selling the tokens at a lower price. If the ETH price subsequently rebounds quickly back to 3000, as mentioned before, Uniswap V3 user assets will remain unaffected, and the token pair allocation provided by LPs will return to its original state. In order to recover the price, the Fluid protocol must rebalance when the price rises by buying back ETH with USDC. However, because it was sold at a low price before, it is now being bought back at a high price. This is actually a case of "selling low and buying high," a type of operation that frequently occurs in volatile markets, and this type of loss is known as LVR (Loss-Versus-Rebalancing). Why does Fluid need to be rebalanced? Because LP trading pairs play a very important role in Fluid in order to connect lending and DEX using a unified liquidity layer, even the loans made through lending are trading pairs. Therefore, Fluid had to introduce a concept – “Shares”. In Uniswap V3, LPs are non-fungible, and withdrawals are made via NFTs. Your actions only affect yourself. In order for liquidity to be usable by lending protocols (collateral and debt), Fluid must design its liquidity pools to be homogeneous. LPs do not hold specific "ETH in this price range," but rather "x% of the entire pool." When the agreement triggers rebalancing and causes the aforementioned "buy low, sell high" attrition, the total net asset value of the entire pool decreases. Since LPs hold shares, the price of a share = total pool assets / total number of shares, and the share price will fall directly. Therefore, unlike in Uniswap V3, LPs cannot choose "I will not participate in this adjustment and I will hold on to it"; in Fluid LPs, they are forced to participate in the rebalancing. For another example, Assume the price of ETH is 1000 USDC. Invest LP 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (total value $2000). At this point, the price dropped, with ETH falling from 1000 to 800. 1. Uniswap V3 (Do not operate) As prices fall, traders sell ETH, forcing LPs to buy it. This reduces USDC and increases ETH in the LP pool. Eventually, at the low of 800, the LP pool becomes 100% ETH (let's say approximately 2.2 ETH, with no USDC remaining). The current LP holdings are worth 2.2 ETH, or 1760 USDT. Although they are at a paper loss, the LPs hold a large amount of ETH. 2. Fluid Forced Rebalancing The same situation occurs. The price falls below the lower limit of the range set by Fluid. The protocol determines that the current range (900-1100) is invalid. In order for Vault to continue generating fees (or for lending health), the range must be moved to near the current price, such as 720-880. The key issue is that establishing the new 720-880 range requires 50% ETH + 50% USDC. However, your current position is entirely in ETH. Therefore, a forced action is implemented: Fluid must sell half of your ETH at the 800 price level and convert it back to USDC. Therefore, 1.1 ETH was sold for 880 USDC, which was then used to form a new LP with the remaining 1.1 ETH. The current value is 1.1 ETH + 880 USDC = 1760. However, at this point, your ETH holdings have decreased from 2.2 to 1.1. In effect, Fluid forced you to "cut your losses" at this bottom. At this point, the price rebounded, and the price of ETH rose from 800 back to 1000. Uniswap V3 (Lie flat, no operation required) As the price rebounded, the 2.2 ETH held were gradually bought up and converted back to USDC. The price returned to 1000, and the LP position reverted to 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (ignoring transaction fees). Total value 2000 U, impermanent loss has disappeared. Fluid Forced Rebalancing Prices rebounded, and the new range of 720-880 became invalid again. It is necessary to rebalance and move the range back to 900-1100. Currently, there are only 880 USDC and 1.1 ETH. If the price breaks through 880, the LPs will only have USDC, because the ETH has been bought. At this point, the LPs' positions are all in USDC, totaling 1760 USDC, which is the 880 USDC they initially held plus the amount they sold later. The protocol rebalances when the ETH price reaches 1000, buying ETH with regular USDC to maintain a 50:50 ETH:USDC value. At this point, the LP's position is 0.88 ETH and 880 USDC. The total value is 1760 USDC, a loss of 240 USDC compared to the initial total value of 2000 USDC. Moreover, this 240 U is a permanent loss. The subsequent Fluid DEX v2 upgrade addresses the pain point of permanent loss during rebalancing by transferring the wear and tear costs to arbitrageurs in a "smarter" way, thereby significantly reducing this permanent loss. First, there is a dynamic fee mechanism. When prices fluctuate sharply, the transaction fee will increase accordingly to compensate for the rebalancing losses of LPs. Secondly, a "buffer zone" is set up for the oracle; if it is just a brief insertion, no rebalancing will be performed. Then, LPs are allowed to customize price ranges, with wider options available; rebalancing only occurs when prices exceed these ranges. Asymmetric LP positions are also permitted, meaning the token pair does not need to maintain a constant 50:50 ratio. If that's the case, why does Fluid have a TVL of $1.785 billion and account for 43.68% of Uniswap's trading volume in the past 30 days? Fluid masks or offsets permanent wear and tear through extreme capital efficiency and low-risk strategies for specific assets. Wear and tear comes from frequent rebalancing caused by sharp price fluctuations. But what if, however, the prices between LP token pairs didn't fluctuate? For stable pegged assets like USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, rebalancing wear is virtually zero. However, Fluid's mechanism allows for leverage of up to 39x on these assets. Furthermore, the returns include both lending and DEX revenue. Therefore, Fluid's focus is actually on stablecoins, ETH and its LST assets, and BTC-related liquid assets, as shown in the data below. Source: https://dune.com/entropy_advisors/fluid-liquidity Another point is that Fluid's liquidation mechanism differs from typical lending agreements, with liquidation penalties as low as 0.1%. If a lending agreement like Aave needs to be liquidated, external MEV Bots can take the collateral at a discount to help with the liquidation. This "discount" is the liquidation penalty, designed to prevent losses from margin calls. Aave's penalty is 5%. A unified liquidity layer allows Fluid to eliminate the need for external clearing, instead completing clearing directly on its own DEX. The system automatically sells a portion of the collateral to repay the debt. Therefore, penalties can be as low as 0.1% plus slippage. This is actually a favorable trade-off brought about by a unified liquidity layer, which also benefits high leverage. Therefore, Fluid is very beneficial for revolving loans of stable asset LPs such as USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, and will also attract stablecoin investment whales and aggressive on-chain traders. Can I buy $FLUID tokens? To be honest, I'm not sure. Currently, there is no necessary connection between protocol revenue and coin price, although the Instadapp community and team have repeatedly hinted at or discussed Fluid's revenue distribution issue. However, the protocol revenue is not currently being distributed to token holders. Summarize Tradeoffs are an extremely important, even primary, consideration in blockchain project design. To achieve core features, certain necessary conditions must be met, and these conditions, in turn, constrain the project. Fluid is a project with a prominent trade-off. It is believed that the project team designed it from the outset to build a unified liquidity layer, expanding liquidity through lending and DEX features. The stablecoin LP and ETH and its LPT token trading pairs are the best entry point for expanding liquidity through leveraged cyclical lending.

High-leverage stablecoin arbitrage tool? A detailed analysis of Fluid's 39x leverage strategy and the duality of its "low liquidation penalty".

2025/12/08 18:00

Fluid is an interesting, difficult-to-understand, and highly controversial DeFi protocol. As a "new" DeFi protocol launched in 2024, its peak TVL exceeded $2.6 billion, and it still has $1.785 billion in TVL.

With a trading volume of $16.591 billion over the past 30 days, Ethereum's mainnet trading volume accounts for 43.68% of Uniswap's total trading volume. This is a remarkable achievement.

Fluid combines lending with a DEX, accepting LPs (such as ETH/wBTC) as collateral, allowing LPs to still earn fees while providing collateral. Fluid calls this Smart Collateral.

Okay, it seems rather ordinary.

Image generated by Nano Banana Pro - Gemini AI based on the original text.

Smart Debt is a unique design feature of Fluid. Normally, in lending, users borrow money and pay interest.

In Fluid smart debt, users also borrow LP trading pairs.

That's right. If you want to borrow 1000 USDT, you will borrow 500 USDT + 500 USDC. The trading pair borrowed by the user will be automatically deposited into Fluid DEX as liquidity.

In other words, users can choose to withdraw the funds for other purposes, just like a regular loan, or they can choose to pledge LPs to borrow from LPs and then deposit them into the DEX to earn more transaction fees.

Essentially, smart debt encourages borrowers to leverage LPs within Fluid for revolving lending. This protocol increases liquidity, attracts more traders, and allows LPs to earn more transaction fees. This is precisely the flywheel that Fluid ultimately aims to build.

Therefore, if you have studied Fluid, you will see many articles describing Fluid as a "DEX-on-lending" protocol, and this is the reason.

The Fluid architecture is like a composite structure; you can think of it as a main road and auxiliary roads, a trunk and tributaries, a two-layer cake, or anything like that.

The core underlying component is the unified Liquidity Layer, a smart contract used to store the liquidity of all assets. It is responsible for managing all the money and handling deposits, withdrawals, loans, and repayments.

Above the liquidity layer are multiple sub-protocols and Vault. The sub-protocols have their own business logic, but they do not directly hold assets. Instead, they use the liquidity layer to manage the deposit and withdrawal of funds.

The various sub-protocols are interconnected through a liquidity layer. For example, assets deposited by a user through a lending sub-protocol can be lent out by other Vault sub-protocols;

Assets deposited through smart lending can be lent out by Vault and simultaneously provide trading liquidity for DEX sub-protocols.

Ordinary users only need to interact with the various sub-protocols to conduct deposit or loan operations, without having to directly access the liquidity layer.

Specific operating methods

Typical lending agreements:

Alice deposits: 100 ETH (single token) Bob lends out: 5000 USDC (single token)

Fluid method:

Usage 1: Ordinary Loans

Just like Aave and Compound, you deposit collateral and your wallet receives a loan, except that the loan is lent out by LPs, such as USDT + USC, and the loan can be used anywhere.

Use Case 2: Smart Debt

While both involve depositing collateral and lending to limited partners (LPs), the difference lies in the fact that the Fluid protocol directly injects this money into Fluid's DEX trading pool. Users earn transaction fees through debt, and the liquidity pool expands its liquidity through debt.

Then, users can revolve the loan. This means using LPs as collateral to borrow from other LPs, then collateralizing again to borrow more, and so on in a continuous cycle. The official documentation gives a theoretical maximum leverage of 39 times based on a 95% LTV (Loan-to-Value) calculation.

What are the trade-offs of Fluid?

Fluid attempts to unify lending and trading within a single liquidity layer. To achieve this unification, certain compromises must be made, and these compromises are precisely the root cause of additional losses suffered by limited partners (LPs) during volatile market conditions.

In Uniswap V3, when the market price exceeds the LP price range, users only temporarily lose to earn transaction fees, and their positions become 100% of a single asset (e.g., all converted to USDC). This is impermanent loss, and the loss may disappear once the price returns to its normal range.

Fluid rebalancing transforms "impermanent loss" into "permanent loss".

Fluid automatically adjusts the liquidity price range for certain Valuts in order to maintain high capital utilization or to maintain lending health (preventing liquidation).

For example,

Suppose the price of ETH drops from 3000 to 2800.

1) Uniswap V3 Manual LP: The LP price range is still 2900-3100. Therefore, you would currently hold 100% ETH. If you choose to remain inactive and the price returns to 3000, the LP will return to its initial state with no additional loss.

2) Fluid Automatic Rebalancing: In order to ensure active liquidity (or for risk control), the protocol will automatically perform "rebalancing" when it detects that the price has fallen below the range.

At the 2800 level, a portion of the LP's ETH must be sold and converted into USDC to regain liquidity in the new 2700-2900 range. The consequence is that this "sell" action is a real transaction, selling the tokens at a lower price.

If the ETH price subsequently rebounds quickly back to 3000, as mentioned before, Uniswap V3 user assets will remain unaffected, and the token pair allocation provided by LPs will return to its original state.

In order to recover the price, the Fluid protocol must rebalance when the price rises by buying back ETH with USDC.

However, because it was sold at a low price before, it is now being bought back at a high price. This is actually a case of "selling low and buying high," a type of operation that frequently occurs in volatile markets, and this type of loss is known as LVR (Loss-Versus-Rebalancing).

Why does Fluid need to be rebalanced?

Because LP trading pairs play a very important role in Fluid in order to connect lending and DEX using a unified liquidity layer, even the loans made through lending are trading pairs.

Therefore, Fluid had to introduce a concept – “Shares”.

In Uniswap V3, LPs are non-fungible, and withdrawals are made via NFTs. Your actions only affect yourself.

In order for liquidity to be usable by lending protocols (collateral and debt), Fluid must design its liquidity pools to be homogeneous. LPs do not hold specific "ETH in this price range," but rather "x% of the entire pool."

When the agreement triggers rebalancing and causes the aforementioned "buy low, sell high" attrition, the total net asset value of the entire pool decreases. Since LPs hold shares, the price of a share = total pool assets / total number of shares, and the share price will fall directly.

Therefore, unlike in Uniswap V3, LPs cannot choose "I will not participate in this adjustment and I will hold on to it"; in Fluid LPs, they are forced to participate in the rebalancing.

For another example,

Assume the price of ETH is 1000 USDC. Invest LP 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (total value $2000).

At this point, the price dropped, with ETH falling from 1000 to 800.

1. Uniswap V3 (Do not operate)

As prices fall, traders sell ETH, forcing LPs to buy it. This reduces USDC and increases ETH in the LP pool. Eventually, at the low of 800, the LP pool becomes 100% ETH (let's say approximately 2.2 ETH, with no USDC remaining).

The current LP holdings are worth 2.2 ETH, or 1760 USDT. Although they are at a paper loss, the LPs hold a large amount of ETH.

2. Fluid Forced Rebalancing

The same situation occurs. The price falls below the lower limit of the range set by Fluid. The protocol determines that the current range (900-1100) is invalid. In order for Vault to continue generating fees (or for lending health), the range must be moved to near the current price, such as 720-880.

The key issue is that establishing the new 720-880 range requires 50% ETH + 50% USDC. However, your current position is entirely in ETH. Therefore, a forced action is implemented: Fluid must sell half of your ETH at the 800 price level and convert it back to USDC.

Therefore, 1.1 ETH was sold for 880 USDC, which was then used to form a new LP with the remaining 1.1 ETH.

The current value is 1.1 ETH + 880 USDC = 1760. However, at this point, your ETH holdings have decreased from 2.2 to 1.1. In effect, Fluid forced you to "cut your losses" at this bottom.

At this point, the price rebounded, and the price of ETH rose from 800 back to 1000.

Uniswap V3 (Lie flat, no operation required)

As the price rebounded, the 2.2 ETH held were gradually bought up and converted back to USDC. The price returned to 1000, and the LP position reverted to 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (ignoring transaction fees).

Total value 2000 U, impermanent loss has disappeared.

Fluid Forced Rebalancing

Prices rebounded, and the new range of 720-880 became invalid again. It is necessary to rebalance and move the range back to 900-1100.

Currently, there are only 880 USDC and 1.1 ETH. If the price breaks through 880, the LPs will only have USDC, because the ETH has been bought. At this point, the LPs' positions are all in USDC, totaling 1760 USDC, which is the 880 USDC they initially held plus the amount they sold later.

The protocol rebalances when the ETH price reaches 1000, buying ETH with regular USDC to maintain a 50:50 ETH:USDC value.

At this point, the LP's position is 0.88 ETH and 880 USDC. The total value is 1760 USDC, a loss of 240 USDC compared to the initial total value of 2000 USDC.

Moreover, this 240 U is a permanent loss.

The subsequent Fluid DEX v2 upgrade addresses the pain point of permanent loss during rebalancing by transferring the wear and tear costs to arbitrageurs in a "smarter" way, thereby significantly reducing this permanent loss.

First, there is a dynamic fee mechanism. When prices fluctuate sharply, the transaction fee will increase accordingly to compensate for the rebalancing losses of LPs.

Secondly, a "buffer zone" is set up for the oracle; if it is just a brief insertion, no rebalancing will be performed.

Then, LPs are allowed to customize price ranges, with wider options available; rebalancing only occurs when prices exceed these ranges. Asymmetric LP positions are also permitted, meaning the token pair does not need to maintain a constant 50:50 ratio.

If that's the case, why does Fluid have a TVL of $1.785 billion and account for 43.68% of Uniswap's trading volume in the past 30 days?

Fluid masks or offsets permanent wear and tear through extreme capital efficiency and low-risk strategies for specific assets.

Wear and tear comes from frequent rebalancing caused by sharp price fluctuations. But what if, however, the prices between LP token pairs didn't fluctuate?

For stable pegged assets like USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, rebalancing wear is virtually zero. However, Fluid's mechanism allows for leverage of up to 39x on these assets.

Furthermore, the returns include both lending and DEX revenue.

Therefore, Fluid's focus is actually on stablecoins, ETH and its LST assets, and BTC-related liquid assets, as shown in the data below.

Source: https://dune.com/entropy_advisors/fluid-liquidity

Another point is that Fluid's liquidation mechanism differs from typical lending agreements, with liquidation penalties as low as 0.1%.

If a lending agreement like Aave needs to be liquidated, external MEV Bots can take the collateral at a discount to help with the liquidation.

This "discount" is the liquidation penalty, designed to prevent losses from margin calls. Aave's penalty is 5%.

A unified liquidity layer allows Fluid to eliminate the need for external clearing, instead completing clearing directly on its own DEX. The system automatically sells a portion of the collateral to repay the debt. Therefore, penalties can be as low as 0.1% plus slippage.

This is actually a favorable trade-off brought about by a unified liquidity layer, which also benefits high leverage.

Therefore, Fluid is very beneficial for revolving loans of stable asset LPs such as USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, and will also attract stablecoin investment whales and aggressive on-chain traders.

Can I buy $FLUID tokens?

To be honest, I'm not sure.

Currently, there is no necessary connection between protocol revenue and coin price, although the Instadapp community and team have repeatedly hinted at or discussed Fluid's revenue distribution issue.

However, the protocol revenue is not currently being distributed to token holders.

Summarize

Tradeoffs are an extremely important, even primary, consideration in blockchain project design. To achieve core features, certain necessary conditions must be met, and these conditions, in turn, constrain the project.

Fluid is a project with a prominent trade-off. It is believed that the project team designed it from the outset to build a unified liquidity layer, expanding liquidity through lending and DEX features. The stablecoin LP and ETH and its LPT token trading pairs are the best entry point for expanding liquidity through leveraged cyclical lending.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

What can save you, my crypto world?

What can save you, my crypto world?

Author: Nancy, PANews “I wasted eight years of my life in the crypto industry.” Aevo co-founder Ken Chan published an article denouncing the crypto industry as having degenerated into a "super casino," a post that quickly went viral in online communities both domestically and internationally. Behind the millions of views, the community debate exploded. Supporters saw it as a wake-up call, bursting the bubble, while opponents viewed it as a betrayal by those who had already benefited. Putting aside the emotional outbursts, this debate reflects the collective anxiety and cyclical confusion within the industry currently facing liquidity shortages and a narrative vacuum. Turned into a super casino? What's wrong with the crypto ecosystem? In this lengthy article, Ken Chan candidly admits that the past eight years have been a journey from idealism to disillusionment. As a libertarian and programmer deeply influenced by the works of Ayn Rand, he was a staunch believer in the cypherpunk spirit, viewing Bitcoin as "a private bank for the rich." However, after eight years of full-time dedication to the industry, he painfully admitted that even though he had made money, he still felt that those eight years of his youth had been completely wasted. The narrative most often uttered by industry practitioners is "completely replacing the existing financial system with blockchain," but this is merely a propaganda slogan; they are simply maintaining the world's largest online casino, operating 24/7. This misperception stems from a drastically distorted industry incentive mechanism. In reality, no one cares about genuine technological iteration. Market participants are blindly pouring funds into the next Layer 1 public chain, attempting to bet on the next Solana. This speculative mentality has fueled an inflated market capitalization of hundreds of billions of dollars. In fact, there are quite a few zombie public blockchains nowadays. Even emerging high-performance blockchains that have raised tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars are not immune to the airdrop craze and incentive subsidy activities, leaving very few real users. This is like building countless highways in a desert, but there are no cities or factories along the way, only a group of speculators reselling land. The data also confirms this predicament. According to DeFiLlama, in the past 24 hours, only 15 chains had on-chain DEX transaction volumes exceeding 10 million, and only 4 chains met the requirement of having millions of daily active addresses. On this "ghost town" of over-saturated infrastructure, Ken argues that spot DEXs, perpetual contracts, prediction markets, and the Meme coin platform are essentially gambling tools. For example, the former Meme culture has been replaced by an industrialized "coin issuance pipeline," becoming an on-chain casino of extreme PvP; and the frequent interactions across many applications are not driven by genuine needs, but rather by the pursuit of points for airdrops. As Ken points out, while VCs can write 5,000-word essays outlining grand visions, the reality is that these games are constantly consuming the existing funds of retail and institutional investors. What makes Ken Chan even more uncomfortable is the industry's subversion of common business sense. Here, making money through token issuance, market making, and profit-taking is far easier than refining a product. The market is flooded with tokens that have "high FDV and low liquidity," projects with no real revenue yet boasting valuations of billions of dollars, and so-called governance tokens that are nothing more than liquidity tools for investors to exit. This environment where bad money drives out good not only deprives practitioners of the ability to identify sustainable businesses but also instills a highly toxic "financial nihilism" in the younger generation. With traditional assets becoming increasingly unaffordable, Generation Z is exhibiting its own form of "financial rebellion." According to a recent Financial Times article, the deteriorating housing affordability in the United States is profoundly changing Generation Z's financial and consumption behaviors, even driving some young people to speculate in cryptocurrencies and generating feelings of economic nihilism. Besides cryptocurrencies, trendy stocks, collectible toys, leveraged ETFs, and prediction markets are all financial trends among young people. Ken Chan's accusations resonated with many. For example, Tangent founder Jason Choi lamented that we already have countless low-cost/fast blockchains, lax regulatory systems, massive overfunding since 2017, and thousands of developers delivering smart contracts over the past decade. Yet, an AI company is about to IPO at a price exceeding the total market capitalization of all cryptocurrencies except Bitcoin and stablecoins. Inversion Capital founder Santiago Roel Santos points out that this is a sobering reminder of reality for the entire industry. Today, the crypto industry has only about 40 million monthly active users (MAU), while Facebook had 845 million MAU at its IPO and a market capitalization of approximately $100 billion; OpenAI currently has about 800 million MAU and its most recent valuation was $500 billion. To have a $10 trillion asset class, we need at least a billion users. Crypto KOL YQ cited an older article stating that many crypto OGs have chosen to leave the market after questioning their initial beliefs. In the current cycle, highly speculative projects like memes, perpetual tokens, and prediction markets remain resilient, while the value of many infrastructure and social projects is increasingly difficult to prove. This is undoubtedly the most difficult phase for startups, VCs, traders, and users, and the market is rife with "pump and dump" schemes using leveraged perpetual tokens to manipulate small-cap or older coins. In this environment, it's crucial to acknowledge the facts and accept reality. Whether you're a VC or an entrepreneur, the only way to survive is to continuously adjust your direction and consistently deliver products. Navigating the cycles of crypto sentiment, "the forest needs to be cleared of dead trees." Many industry professionals believe that Ken Chan's negative emotions are essentially a typical "retreat the ladder after getting ashore" mentality. As a beneficiary of the existing system, he made his fortune in the crypto market, yet he turned around and criticized this ladder to wealth as dirty. At the same time, his aversion to financial nihilism ignored the fact that for countless ordinary people around the world, this bubble-filled market remains one of the few channels for upward social mobility. Moreover, AEVO's price has already fallen by more than 98% from its all-time high. Regarding the current predicament of the crypto market, Ken believes the industry is merely spinning its wheels, but many proponents see it as a necessary growing pain in technological development. We cannot negate the entire financial city that is rising from the ground just because we see people losing money in a casino. If we turn our attention to high-inflation countries like Argentina, Turkey, and Nigeria, we find that stablecoins such as USDT and USDC have become de facto "hard currency." Local people rely on them to protect their meager savings from hyperinflation, and this financial system has effectively served tens of millions of people. Meanwhile, Bitcoin is no longer just a geek's toy; it's becoming part of the balance sheets of sovereign wealth funds, national government reserves (such as in El Salvador and Bhutan), and top hedge funds. Ethereum's technical components have been established as a global public blockchain standard and have gained recognition from Wall Street capital. Furthermore, with assets such as stocks, bonds, and real estate rapidly being put on-chain, financial efficiency is experiencing a substantial leap. On the technological front, countless developers are making breakthroughs in cutting-edge fields such as zero-knowledge proofs (ZK), censorship-resistant networks, and quantum resistance. These are the real undercurrents behind the noisy crypto market. Regarding the "casino analogy," Haseeb, a partner at Dragonlfy, points out that the cryptocurrency space has never lacked casinos. The first blockbuster application on Bitcoin was Satoshi Dice (2012). The first blockbuster smart contract on Ethereum was King of the Ether Throne (2015), which was essentially a Ponzi scheme. Once programmable money exists, people's first instinct is always to bet and play games—this is human nature. The crypto world has always had its hottest casinos: ICO casinos, DeFi, NFTs, and now MEME coins. The forms change, but the essence remains the same. While casinos are glamorous and attract attention on social media, focusing solely on their superficiality will cause you to miss the more important stories. He further points out that cryptocurrencies are becoming a superior financial vehicle, reshaping the nature of money and subtly altering the power relationship between individuals and governments. Bitcoin has begun to challenge national sovereignty, with governments incorporating it into their balance sheets; stablecoins are influencing monetary policy, prompting central banks to scramble to respond; and the scale and value of permissionless financial protocols like Uniswap and AAVE have surpassed many unicorn fintech companies. The world is undergoing a profound shift around cryptocurrencies. “This transformation is slower than many anticipated, but that’s how technology diffusion always is,” Haseeb stated. Three years after ChatGPT’s launch, generative AI still hasn’t been reflected in GDP or employment data; the Industrial Revolution took 50 years to truly impact productivity; and the widespread adoption of the internet took over 20 years. Expecting it to replace the world’s most regulated financial system within a mere five years is unrealistic. If you’re frustrated because you didn’t become rich from participating in a MEME project, take a deep breath; the industry doesn’t owe anyone wealth. In fact, pessimism and a sense of “mental surrender” on the timeline aren’t necessarily bad things. Pantera Capital partner Mason Nystrom also believes that a pessimistic view of cryptocurrencies and their social value is wrong. While speculation and abuse exist in the cryptocurrency space, and its casinos are real and large-scale, with many people losing money at the tables, it also contains a great deal of overlooked positive social value. He explained that Bitcoin has become a global, non-sovereign asset that anyone in the world with an internet connection can hold. It provides a veto/exit mechanism for people worldwide, transferring economic control from nations to individuals. Stablecoins offer more efficient and secure financial services to people around the world, with faster disbursement, higher returns, and lower costs. The lack of returns from banks for depositors, high fees for cross-border remittances, and the 2.9% transaction fee for e-commerce are all being reshaped by stablecoins, bringing tangible social value. Lending platforms like Aave and Morpho enable people worldwide to access over-collateralized loans. The low-collateral lending market will further unleash enormous social benefits, reduce capital costs, and create significant positive externalities. Furthermore, blockchain will enable global users to access previously restricted financial products such as stocks, bonds, insurance, and credit. Permissionless financing allows any good idea to gain support based on its own value. A more transparent, efficient, and low-cost market is itself an improvement for society. Mason Nystrom also stated that cryptocurrencies are building a completely new financial system. Some will build casinos, some will build payment networks, some will build speculative instruments, and others will build inclusive credit infrastructure. This new financial system will not be perfect, but it will far surpass the current state. If we only see the casino aspect of cryptocurrencies, perhaps we should take a step back and look at all the benefits that cryptocurrencies have brought to and will continue to bring to society from a more macro perspective. The crypto industry is currently experiencing a low point, and Ken's post is less a reflection and more an emotional outpouring after a failed startup. Projects like Aevo are not uncommon in their difficulties; this is precisely the survival of the fittest the industry is undergoing. In the past few years, the sector has seen an oversupply of projects lacking real value and unable to deliver viable products. The current pain is simply squeezing out the bubble that has accumulated. Just as forests need to be regularly cleared of dead trees to prevent decay from spreading, the same applies to the crypto industry. Let those who are weary, lost, or only here for speculation leave naturally, and the air will become clear. Either change your mindset and refocus on the future, or make way for those still building. This journey has just begun and is far from over.
Share
PANews2025/12/08 18:28
Lovable AI’s Astonishing Rise: Anton Osika Reveals Startup Secrets at Bitcoin World Disrupt 2025

Lovable AI’s Astonishing Rise: Anton Osika Reveals Startup Secrets at Bitcoin World Disrupt 2025

BitcoinWorld Lovable AI’s Astonishing Rise: Anton Osika Reveals Startup Secrets at Bitcoin World Disrupt 2025 Are you ready to witness a phenomenon? The world of technology is abuzz with the incredible rise of Lovable AI, a startup that’s not just breaking records but rewriting the rulebook for rapid growth. Imagine creating powerful apps and websites just by speaking to an AI – that’s the magic Lovable brings to the masses. This groundbreaking approach has propelled the company into the spotlight, making it one of the fastest-growing software firms in history. And now, the visionary behind this sensation, co-founder and CEO Anton Osika, is set to share his invaluable insights on the Disrupt Stage at the highly anticipated Bitcoin World Disrupt 2025. If you’re a founder, investor, or tech enthusiast eager to understand the future of innovation, this is an event you cannot afford to miss. Lovable AI’s Meteoric Ascent: Redefining Software Creation In an era where digital transformation is paramount, Lovable AI has emerged as a true game-changer. Its core premise is deceptively simple yet profoundly impactful: democratize software creation. By enabling anyone to build applications and websites through intuitive AI conversations, Lovable is empowering the vast majority of individuals who lack coding skills to transform their ideas into tangible digital products. This mission has resonated globally, leading to unprecedented momentum. The numbers speak for themselves: Achieved an astonishing $100 million Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) in less than a year. Successfully raised a $200 million Series A funding round, valuing the company at $1.8 billion, led by industry giant Accel. Is currently fielding unsolicited investor offers, pushing its valuation towards an incredible $4 billion. As industry reports suggest, investors are unequivocally “loving Lovable,” and it’s clear why. This isn’t just about impressive financial metrics; it’s about a company that has tapped into a fundamental need, offering a solution that is both innovative and accessible. The rapid scaling of Lovable AI provides a compelling case study for any entrepreneur aiming for similar exponential growth. The Visionary Behind the Hype: Anton Osika’s Journey to Innovation Every groundbreaking company has a driving force, and for Lovable, that force is co-founder and CEO Anton Osika. His journey is as fascinating as his company’s success. A physicist by training, Osika previously contributed to the cutting-edge research at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research. This deep technical background, combined with his entrepreneurial spirit, has been instrumental in Lovable’s rapid ascent. Before Lovable, he honed his skills as a co-founder of Depict.ai and a Founding Engineer at Sana. Based in Stockholm, Osika has masterfully steered Lovable from a nascent idea to a global phenomenon in record time. His leadership embodies a unique blend of profound technical understanding and a keen, consumer-first vision. At Bitcoin World Disrupt 2025, attendees will have the rare opportunity to hear directly from Osika about what it truly takes to build a brand that not only scales at an incredible pace in a fiercely competitive market but also adeptly manages the intense cultural conversations that inevitably accompany such swift and significant success. His insights will be crucial for anyone looking to understand the dynamics of high-growth tech leadership. Unpacking Consumer Tech Innovation at Bitcoin World Disrupt 2025 The 20th anniversary of Bitcoin World is set to be marked by a truly special event: Bitcoin World Disrupt 2025. From October 27–29, Moscone West in San Francisco will transform into the epicenter of innovation, gathering over 10,000 founders, investors, and tech leaders. It’s the ideal platform to explore the future of consumer tech innovation, and Anton Osika’s presence on the Disrupt Stage is a highlight. His session will delve into how Lovable is not just participating in but actively shaping the next wave of consumer-facing technologies. Why is this session particularly relevant for those interested in the future of consumer experiences? Osika’s discussion will go beyond the superficial, offering a deep dive into the strategies that have allowed Lovable to carve out a unique category in a market long thought to be saturated. Attendees will gain a front-row seat to understanding how to identify unmet consumer needs, leverage advanced AI to meet those needs, and build a product that captivates users globally. The event itself promises a rich tapestry of ideas and networking opportunities: For Founders: Sharpen your pitch and connect with potential investors. For Investors: Discover the next breakout startup poised for massive growth. For Innovators: Claim your spot at the forefront of technological advancements. The insights shared regarding consumer tech innovation at this event will be invaluable for anyone looking to navigate the complexities and capitalize on the opportunities within this dynamic sector. Mastering Startup Growth Strategies: A Blueprint for the Future Lovable’s journey isn’t just another startup success story; it’s a meticulously crafted blueprint for effective startup growth strategies in the modern era. Anton Osika’s experience offers a rare glimpse into the practicalities of scaling a business at breakneck speed while maintaining product integrity and managing external pressures. For entrepreneurs and aspiring tech leaders, his talk will serve as a masterclass in several critical areas: Strategy Focus Key Takeaways from Lovable’s Journey Rapid Scaling How to build infrastructure and teams that support exponential user and revenue growth without compromising quality. Product-Market Fit Identifying a significant, underserved market (the 99% who can’t code) and developing a truly innovative solution (AI-powered app creation). Investor Relations Balancing intense investor interest and pressure with a steadfast focus on product development and long-term vision. Category Creation Carving out an entirely new niche by democratizing complex technologies, rather than competing in existing crowded markets. Understanding these startup growth strategies is essential for anyone aiming to build a resilient and impactful consumer experience. Osika’s session will provide actionable insights into how to replicate elements of Lovable’s success, offering guidance on navigating challenges from product development to market penetration and investor management. Conclusion: Seize the Future of Tech The story of Lovable, under the astute leadership of Anton Osika, is a testament to the power of innovative ideas meeting flawless execution. Their remarkable journey from concept to a multi-billion-dollar valuation in record time is a compelling narrative for anyone interested in the future of technology. By democratizing software creation through Lovable AI, they are not just building a company; they are fostering a new generation of creators. His appearance at Bitcoin World Disrupt 2025 is an unmissable opportunity to gain direct insights from a leader who is truly shaping the landscape of consumer tech innovation. Don’t miss this chance to learn about cutting-edge startup growth strategies and secure your front-row seat to the future. Register now and save up to $668 before Regular Bird rates end on September 26. To learn more about the latest AI market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping AI features. This post Lovable AI’s Astonishing Rise: Anton Osika Reveals Startup Secrets at Bitcoin World Disrupt 2025 first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/17 23:40